September 30, 2014, 10:47:46 AM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - preppyak

Pages: 1 ... 43 44 [45] 46 47 ... 53
661
EOS Bodies / Re: T4i or 60D?
« on: May 24, 2012, 10:30:47 AM »
Compare to do what? The ergonomic advantages of the 60d still appliy, the touchscreen won't change that, so it's really a matter of usage scenario. But unless the sensor is seriously upgraded in dr or noise, people who can cough up the price difference should be still well-advised to get the xxd - which runs magic lantern. That is unless you want live view af, but we still need to see how it actually performs.
And for the first few months, there wont be a price difference (acually, 60D may be a bit cheaper). You can get a 60D w/ 18-135 refurb for $830ish+tax, T4i will probably retail for $899 or $999 with the 18-55 kit lens. I'd rather have the 60D's ergonomics and button layout unless the video AF is some revelation (Magic Lantern will hit the T4i fast enough).

662
Lenses / Re: DSLR Video: Canon 24mm 1.4L II vs 24mm 2.8 IS
« on: May 24, 2012, 08:53:35 AM »
I would either go much wider (I love the Tokina 11-16 f2.8 ) or go for a more standard lens, like a canon 28mm f2.8 or Canon 35mm f2.0.
He already has the Voigtlander 40mm f/2, so getting the 35 f/2 won't do him any good.

On the other end, for shooting casual stuff of friends and family, the Tokina is way too wide. It's a great lens if you know how to use it. But, of the lenses I own, it'd be the last one I would pick to shoot people, because of the distortion. Even at 16mm you'll find it annoying.

Personally I wouldn't spend that much on the 24mm f/1.4 just to shoot friends, but, if I had the money it'd be a nice lens to own. I think the IS primes are way overpriced, and you'd get more bang for your buck going another way. I'd either get one of the older non-IS primes and a decent stabilizer, or look for one of the IS enabled zooms (Canon 17-55, Sigma 17-50, Tamron 24-70, etc). You'd also gain a constant aperture, which is important for video work, and you'll gain a stop or two from the 15-85 you currently own.

663
Lenses / Re: 70-200 f4L USM - Price Increasing... ??
« on: May 24, 2012, 08:39:22 AM »
I've not been watching prices, but have read this before. However, at least pc prices seem to be *higher* before x-mas because working people want new stuff they can play with during the holidays, and prices only drop afterwards. Is this different in the dslr segment?
I'm going off the price history, and Canon historically does all their rebates and price drops in November (usually before Black Friday) and carries them into Xmas. This year, they went on for quite some time, well into February. Not sure why PC's differ, but for a lot of consumer electronics, that trend is true.

Doesn't mean you can't find deals other times of the year (20% off Canon refurbs, etc), but especially for bigger ticket items, the best time seems to be during those two big rebate periods.

664
Lenses / Re: 70-200 f4L USM - Price Increasing... ??
« on: May 24, 2012, 07:40:03 AM »
I have this lens and I love it. If you check the Canon Price Watch site, you'll see that it took a dip six months or so ago, and looks ready to climb up again. http://www.canonpricewatch.com/product/00055/Canon-EF-70-200mm-f4L-USM-price.html
Yeah, historically prices are at their lowest right before X-mas (Nov-Dec), and there is also a low-point that comes when they do their summer rebates. In between, the prices rise because the rebates go away, and because Canon wants each "sale" to seem like a good deal each time.

Usually the price increases are at the same time they release their new Rebel (Feb/March), and then they all go on sale in June or July once initial demand is met. This year has been a little odd though, because Canon was more aggressive with sales through Xmas, and they haven't released the new Rebel yet.

665
- Always use UV filters
- Get LensCoats for any lenses you use, to help keep the body of the lens clean (and provide one more barrier)
In fact, I'd get multiple UV filters so you can swap them in and out...use them like a sports videographer would use a piece of glass for a mud or water-spraying shot.

Another thought, get a rain cover for the camera. There are a bunch of cheap options I've looked at on Amazon (though be hesitant with cheap, thin plastic if it could be exposed to high temperatures), but that would act as a buffer to keep that stuff off your lens and body. Its the same principle.

I agree with the sentiment about the macro lenses, and honestly, anything with more range would probably be helpful. The further you can place the camera from the pan, the better

666
Point taken, but I guess I shoot a little differently than that. I generally shoot my landscapes on my 70-200 between f/11 and f/16, and my flowing water shots with that lens usually run in the .5 to a full second range. I'm not going to get out and say my way is the best way, but hopefully you get what I'm saying.
Oh, I do too usually (f/8-f/11), especially with the water. At least in ideal situations. But, in a pinch, it's that I can get that shot without a tripod if I don't have one with me. Because 1/30th is that sort of dividing line. Without IS that isn't possible. I take my gear with my while kayaking, and I don't always want to lug my tripod with me.

Same is true of large volume rivers (Potomac at Great Falls comes to mind), where the water is going so fast that 1/15th is plenty to get what you normally need 1/2 second or more to get. I can work my way to frame shots I couldn't with a tripod and still get decent results. Still a niche use, but, worth the extra money for me.


667
But...but...If you use IS, then you're going to be able to reduce/eliminate camera-shake blur, but not necessarily motion blur. You might get away with handholding at 1/15 sec., but you're still going to capture any movement within that time.
Yeah, but I actually find I use my 70-200 for a lot of landscape shots. I don't always have a tripod with me, but 1/10th or 1/15th is enough to blur a water falling. Or it might be the difference between shooting the landscape at f/4 or f/8.

I went with the IS version because it was sharper, but I think I've found some use for the IS here and there.

668
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 Pancake Coming [CR3]
« on: May 22, 2012, 01:45:42 PM »
I would really like this pancake lens to be f2.0 or even better f1.4 ... also if it would make it a little bigger ... that would make an awesome lens for natural light under difficult conditions and still light to always have with you on a FF body ... f2.8 is too slow here ...
So, you basically want the 35 f/2 or the 35 f/1.4L....Canon already makes those lenses for you. Unless the f/2 is no good and you absolutely have to save that extra 3/4" in lens length; or 7oz is too heavy.

I'd imagine one of the few ways they could make a pancake f/1.4 lens would not involve an EF mount, which would piss people off more than this thing being f/2.8. Or it'd cost more than the 35L, cause it'd have to use some specialty glass to accomplish as much with fewer elements

Also, its not like there are a wealth of low-light pancake lenses out there. I think Samsung has a 30mm f/2, Panasonic has their 20mm f/1.7, there's the Voigtlander 40mm f/2, what else? Most I've seen are at f/2.8, probably for a reason

669
like paul13walnut5, I also don't see the point of the 24-105 when you have all those other lenses

* 17-40 f/4L (or upgrade to 16-35 f/2.8L)
* 35 f/1.4L
* 50 f/1.8
* 100 macro
* 70-200

looks like a great collection to me

I'd only add the 24-105 or 24-70 if I wanted to have a zoom so I could leave everything else at home, and for some reason I didn't deem the 17-40 good enough for that

as for the 70-200, I think I'd go for one of these:
* canon 70-200 f/4L IS if I want IS and a smaller lens
* tamron 70-200 f/2.8 if I need the speed
* canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS II if I have money to spare and don't mind the extra weight
Yeah, I was thinking the same, and depending on your usage, the 70-200 f/2.8L II IS would end up costing you just slightly more than the 24-105 and 70-200 f/4's combined. You've got the wide covered with the 17-40. You've got the normal range covered with primes (35 and 50), and you've got the longer side covered with the 70-200 you get. Depending on how much macro you do, that would decide whether you keep that.

Another play, if you don't want to lug around the heavier 70-200 f/2.8, is to get the 70-200 f/4L IS, then take the $8-900 you'd have spent on the 24-105 and update your 50mm prime and get the 85mm prime. Then you'd be set for low light (primes), landscape (17-40), and portrait/travel (70-200 and primes).

Also, I owned the Tamron 28-75, and I now own the 70-200 f4L IS. There's really no comparison, I liked the Tamron, but I found the AF lacking and the image quality, while nice, doesn't match the L's. If you're other lenses are Canon, you'll notice the difference in color and contrast as well. I love the 70-200, it's on my camera probably 75% of the time.

670
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 Pancake Coming [CR3]
« on: May 22, 2012, 09:59:45 AM »
That said, I would still love to see an updated 35mm f/2 with USM, and perhaps a high quality 50mm f/1.8 or f/2 with USM.
Well, the 50mm f/1.4 has USM, so that would fit your needs in regards to "high quality 50mm", and the price is within this realm (usually <$400). Aside from adding IS, Canon doesnt seem eager to update their non-L primes, so, I wouldn't expect too much. But, an EF mount mirrorless would mean they might start updating primes more, and that'd trickle down to the DSLR side too.
40mm on a 2x crop would be 80mm...  I'm not expecting the mirrorless to be anything more than APS-C, it is just as likely to be the same size as a 4/3rds sensor, EF-M ?  (micro) in a way of beating Nikon on sensor size (Nikon 1), but not suffering a problem of having to build masses of new lenses, as it would be EF or EF-S comparable.

So, could we also expect a cheap 12mm and 24mm pancake too ?, giving 24mm and 48mm focal lengths ?
I was thinking the same thing originally. This would be the portrait lens, and then they'd have a few other pancakes and a 14-42 and 14-100+ zoom that would come out eventually too. But, that there haven't been any rumors, and I don't really remember patents for them, so who knows

671
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 Pancake Coming [CR3]
« on: May 21, 2012, 11:30:13 PM »
I'm also curious about the speed. Maybe someone who knows more about lens design could comment on it. Is it harder to make a useable pancake with speeds greater then 2.8? I've been reading about micro 4/3rds lately and they all seem to complain about slow prime pancakes.
Well, the point of a pancake lens is to be as small as possible. If you look at Canon lens design (for example, the 35mm lenses), the lower the aperture, the wider the diameter and the more elements. The 35mm f/2 has 7 elements in 5 groups, the 35mm f/1.4 has 11 elements in 9 groups. It's twice the length as a result...which would destroy the pancake design. Seems to go away with the longer focal lengths to a point. Also, Canon doesn't offer any cheap wide angles under f/2.8 anymore.

The other factor is that mirrorless is working with a smaller sensor, so they need even faster primes to begin with, by about 2/3rd's a stop to APS-C. So they'd have to pump out f/1.4 primes to match something like the 50mm f/1,8

672
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 Pancake Coming [CR3]
« on: May 21, 2012, 08:58:03 PM »
If that is the case, it would stand to reason that the sensor in the mirrorless will either be full framed or perhaps APS-H (1.3x) since that would be fairly close to a 50mm "standard" focal length.
I agree with you its odd on a DSLR, especially since the 50mm f/1.8 isn't exactly large (1.5" basically).

But if it means the mirror less is EF mount, then it makes it interesting. Though I'd probably rather it had the ability to use FD lenses in addition to EF with an adapter

673
Canon General / Re: Official Discontinued List
« on: May 21, 2012, 08:26:19 PM »
I cannot see why they're discontinuing it. Anyone shooting with an APS-C body who wishes to use HSS will automatically opt for a new/used 580EX.
You answered your own confusion with the next statement. It gives people another option...which means Canon has to keep up the manufacturing line to produce it, stock the spare parts to repair and replace it, and provide tech support for it. MUCH easier to go with the new flash they just released.

That said, you'll see the 580ex in their refurb store for a while I'd imagine. So it's not like you can't get it; it's just that Canon won't cannibalize its own new item sales by offering too many options

674
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 70D & EOS 7D Mark II Speculation [CR1]
« on: May 21, 2012, 02:45:50 PM »
70d would be getting the 100% VF, new AF system, same sensor (although one could hope they refined it to give better ISO, DR, etc), continuous AF, etc... a pretty decent upgrade... I just hope it returns to a mag alloy body.  If so I may retire my 7d and pick this up as my backup body.
Unless your 7D is near death, you'd be retiring it for the exact same camera. Cause the "new" 70D is just the 7D with whatever this continuous auto-focus does.

If they did that, put MFA back in, they'd seriously have a contender, that's for sure.
Wouldn't surprise me if they left it out. Keep the 70D body similar, so its better than the Ti cameras, but not weather-sealed and full-pro style like the 7D, and leave out MFA to make people who want it buy the new 7D. Cause that's one feature they can easily differentiate that will get people to upgrade.

675
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS Rebel T4i/650D Specs [CR2.5]
« on: May 18, 2012, 03:54:40 PM »
The real competition is Nikon, and Canon cannot go to 24mp - so why rock the boat? Another problem with a better sensor in the 650d is that it would cannibalize the 60d which is feature-cut in comparison to the 40d and 50d you cited.
Which is why they'll release a 70D sometime in the early fall with some upgrades to counter that.

There's still be reasons to get the 60D over the T4i (ergonomics, burst rate, button layout, etc)...they'd be the same as the T3i really, with the exception of the auto-focus.

Pages: 1 ... 43 44 [45] 46 47 ... 53